United States v. Medina-Mendoza

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,v.VERONICA MEDINA-MENDOZA, Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

LEONARD T. STRAND, Magistrate Judge.

On May 21, 2013, the above-named defendant, by consent, appeared before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and entered a plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment. After cautioning and examining the defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, the court determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary, and the offense charged was supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense. The court therefore RECOMMENDS that the plea of guilty be accepted and the defendant be adjudged guilty.

At the commencement of the Rule 11 proceeding, the defendant was placed under oath and advised that if she answered any questions falsely, she could be prosecuted for perjury or for making a false statement. She also was advised that in any such prosecution, the Government could use against her any statements she made under oath.

The court then asked a number of questions to ensure the defendant's mental capacity to enter a plea. The defendant stated her full name, her age, and the extent of her schooling. The court inquired into the defendant's history of mental illness and addiction to narcotic drugs. The court further inquired into whether the defendant was under the influence of any drug, medication, or alcoholic beverage at the time of the plea hearing. From this inquiry, the court determined that the defendant was not suffering from any mental disability that would impair her ability to make knowing, intelligent, and voluntary pleas of guilty to the charges.

The defendant acknowledged that she had received a copy of the Indictment, and she had fully discussed these charges with her attorney.

The court determined that there was no plea agreement.

The defendant was advised also that after her plea was accepted, she would have no right to withdraw the plea at a later date, even if the sentence imposed was different from what the defendant or her counsel anticipated.

The court summarized the charge against the defendant, and listed the elements of the crime. The court determined that the defendant understood each and every element of the crime, ascertained that her counsel had explained each and every element of the crime fully to her, and the defendant's counsel confirmed that the defendant understood each and every element of the crime charged.

The court then elicited a full and complete factual basis for all elements of the crimes charged in each Count of the Indictment to which the defendant was pleading guilty.

The court advised the defendant of the consequences of her plea, including the maximum fine, and the maximum term of imprisonment.

With respect to Count One, the defendant was advised that the maximum fine is $250, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment is 20 years; and the maximum period of supervised release is three years.

The defendant also was advised that the court is obligated to impose a special assessment of $100.00, which the defendant must pay. The defendant also was advised of the collateral consequences of a plea of guilty. The defendant acknowledged that she understood all of the above consequences.

The court explained supervised release to the defendant, and advised her that a term of supervised release would be imposed in addition to the sentence of imprisonment. The defendant was advised that there are conditions of supervised release, and that if she were found to have violated a condition of supervised release, then her term of supervised release could be revoked and she could be required to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release without credit for time previously served on supervised release.

The court also explained to the defendant that the district judge would determine the appropriate sentence for her at the sentencing hearing. The defendant confirmed that she understood the court would not determine the appropriate sentence until after the preparation of a presentence report, which the parties would have the opportunity to challenge. The defendant acknowledged that she understood the sentence imposed might be different from what her attorney had estimated. The defendant also was advised ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.